1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant appeal is unlawful since the Defendant had already known the existence of the judgment of the first instance court and did not file a subsequent appeal to the court of the first instance on July 13, 2016, even if it had already known the existence of the judgment of the first instance, for a period of less than one year and nine months thereafter.

B. (1) Where a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 Decided October 24, 1997 (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410, Oct. 24, 199). (2) According to each of the records of this case and the records of this case, the court of first instance sent a copy of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit to the defendant on September 5, 2013, when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant sent a copy of the complaint and the written guidance of lawsuit to the defendant on the following day, and the duplicate, etc. of the complaint are not sent to the defendant as the addressee is not known, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of partly winning the plaintiff on April 8, 2014, and the original judgment is also made by service by public notice.